The next big thing in display technology is HDR (High Dynamic Range). If you thought 3D TVs were a flop, this might be worse. Not because the technology is bad or sketchy, but because this is more confusing than anything we've seen.

The confusion begins with the HDR moniker, which immediately has to compete with HDR photography, which is altogether different. HDR photography comprises multiple images with multiple exposures combined to allow the appearance of more detail and vibrancy in a finished image. It's a system of manipulation.

HDR TV and its cousin, HDR movies, creates a genuine wide dynamic range or huge contrast ratio that show details in areas that would normally be obliterated by the inability for a moving image to capture these details. It requires expensive gear to capture and also to project (movies) or display (TV).

HDR TV also introduces another conflicting word: "nits." To the average person a nit refers to head lice. How this transmogrified into a measurement of brightness has yet to be explained to me, but that's what it means. You need lots of nits to make HDR work. It's an expensive proposition and sounds like it contributes to global warming, if you ask me.

You'll soon be enjoying some fantastic HDR films in the theaters, but if anyone cares enough to buy a high-end HDR TV set remains to be seen. The way I see it the HDR technologies—which should also incorporate wide color gamut (WCG), which adds more actual colors into the TV palette—will eventually be thrown in for free in five years or so.

This is kind of what happened already with UHD 4K, it happened before that with 1080P, and with LED backlighting. 3D technology remains brushed aside, as many predicted.

3D never caught on for a variety of reasons. For one, cable companies were not going to throw away bandwidth by streaming 3D. When they actually sent out a 3D stream it was always a promotional gimmick. Then, no serious Internet-based 3D streaming service ever launched, with the exception of 3DCrave.com which is still in beta. Nobody is that interested.

Personally I like the 3D theater experience. But even though I have a TV projector that can do 3D, I never use the feature at home.

There is some 4K content that can be streamed via a Nuvola NP-1 Android set-top box or the Roku 4K. But I wonder how many people who actually buy a 4K TV at a big box store even have a clue as to what 4K or UHD means or why they should buy one?

My guess is very few. All they know is that the images seem sharper. I doubt they understand that the built-in up-converters are at work. They just see a pretty picture.

Introduce them to HDR at your own risk. When the high nit TVs show up with some HDR content, all they will do is look at the image and the price and that will be that.

The technologies for simple home entertainment have rocketed far past the ability of the public to absorb or understand it. Why bother even telling them about it? Just do it and put a new label on it. UHD has to be better than HD because it is "ultra."

Dolby Labs is one of the top promoters of HDR in theaters and on displays. If an average consumer sees the Dolby Vision logo, they'll think to themselves, "Yeah, I know Dolby. That probably means something good." There would be no further grasp of reality than that. It's become a branding exercise, and Dolby got that part right. The marketing department only imagines there is more to it than brand-name recognition.

Related

I've been studying this effect over the last decade by watching the sets at Costco come and go. It's a definite pattern with a constant transition from one feature appearing at a higher price then dropping and giving way to the next feature while forever dropping in price. All the while the size of the sets increase with 80-inch sets now available.

What I'm trying to say is...people should just give up. Keeping up with these changes in display technology is futile. Just find a trusted source such as PCMag for advice and then buy whatever is recommended, knowing that in a very short few years you will have to buy something to keep up. It's just a TV anyway.

And to answer the original question as to whether the public can deal with HDR: the answer is no.

About the Author

John C. Dvorak is a columnist for PCMag.com and the co-host of the twice weekly podcast, the No Agenda Show. His work is licensed around the world. Previously a columnist for Forbes, PC/Computing, Computer Shopper, MacUser, Barrons, the DEC Professional as well as other newspapers and magazines. Former editor and consulting editor for InfoWorld, he... See Full Bio

Get Our Best Stories!

This newsletter may contain advertising, deals, or affiliate links. Subscribing to a newsletter indicates your consent to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe from the newsletters at any time.